Talk:Kundalini

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Hinduism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Yoga (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

The neutrality of this article is disputed[edit]

I don't see a balanced discussion on this topic because a lot of people also see Kundalini as a very bad demonic influence. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZD2fOyHm7w User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 18:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This article should be treated as an article describing a religious "belief". Youtube sources aren't reliable. We need to stick to documented sources that study religious beliefs and philosophies. As an example, there are many people who think that the holy spirit is evil, but you don't see a section for them on the Holy Spirit article? There are many people who believe that Jesus was not the son of god, or even a holy being. They believe he was evil. Should the article about Jesus include their viewpoints? My point being, that beliefs an article documenting a belief, is by it's very nature, neutral. Again, if there are journals that study kundalini and give well researched viewpoints, they should always be included here, however they talk about it. Happy editing.TheRingess (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the article is somewhat biased towards presenting kundalini as if it is mainstream. It is certainly not a scientific view, and you cant deny it has a religious basis. Medical professionals have opined that current interest in the subject may well be pseudoscience. The article has no discussion on the criticism of kundalini.[1]

Comparison with vajrayana section[edit]

213.235.233.85 (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC) i think there is something wrong in the 'comparison with vajrayana' part...'red bodhicitta' and 'white bodhicitta'. as far as i know there is no such thing. relative bodhicitta is the resolve to reach enlightenment for the benefit of all beings; absolute boddhicitta is compassion without anything towards one is being compassionate which rises through realization of emptiness. the term i think would be correct is 'tigle' or 'chakra'.

I don't know about red and white bodhicitta but the first paragraph sounds OK to me. However the next paragraph: "This practice of 'inner fire' is seen as a preliminary yoga to a further set of practices; obtaining the 'Illusory body', and obtaining the 'Clear Light', as well as practices such as dream yoga, and consciousness projection." does not seem to be about Kundalini so much as encouraging the reader to learn more about Buddhist practises. So I see this paragraph as furthering an editor's particular area of interest more than adding something to our knowledge of kundalini. Freelion (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Unintelligent deletions and reversions is the same as vandalism[edit]

BrahmanAdvaita and Atiyogafan, please try and contribute more intelligently by doing more than simply making broadside additions, deletions and reversions. I have restored the article to how it was before Atiyogafan made his/her sweeping changes which had no discussion. I have since made several improvements one at a time with detailed explanations. If you disagree with any of these, please address them individually and not just revert the whole lot. If you would like to make some additions, please do what I have done and make them one at a time with explanations so that they can be reviewed. You are both on notice for your unintelligent reversions and any continuation of this will be seen as vandalism. Freelion (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing non-RS material is not vandalism. And there clearly seems to be Wikipedia:Consensus. Lastly, since Atiyogafan added high quality academic material, how can you accuse him/her of vandalism? BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes it was clearly unverifiable material I removed, as indicated in the edit summaries. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Idle calls of Wikipedia:Vandalism are simply amusing. Atiyogafan (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)BrahmanAdvaita, please mention the reason in edit summary while reverting, like (unsourced, advertising etc), it is very helpful sometimes.
Freelion, a friendly suggestion, use the word "vandalism" carefully, or it is going to give you trouble.
Freelion, the revert you are talking about, I'll not comment on its content, but, I found some minor formatting errors, for example–
In your edit I saw those code :<b>Active approach – hatha yoga</b>
It should be EITHER '''Active approach – hatha yoga''' OR, I think better is start the line with a semicolon– ;Active approach – hatha yoga You have used <b>...</b> tag at least four times.
Also, I am not sure why you used indent (colon) at the beginning of sentences! Not a big issue, but, if you ask me I'll suggest you not to use it, since every time I see indent in paragraphs, I think it is a quote (since the similar formatting is followed in quotes, blockquotes, cquotes etc). If you have any formatting related questions, you can ask me, I'll try to help! Best --Tito Dutta 02:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the indenting advice Titodutta but I think there are more important issues at hand here at the moment. I have just restored the article to how it was before Atiyogafan and his buddy started this edit war. Let's recap. Atiyogafan made a whole lot of changes which did not have proper edit summaries nor any discussion leave alone consensus. You should try and reach some consensus here on the talk page rather than continually reverting these changes. To argue over the definition of vandalism is a joke. Edit warring is akin to vandalism and you shouldn't have to consult a dictionary or the Wikipedia book of rules to realise that.
I have undone Atiyogafan's massive changes because:
  • There were not proper edit summaries (ie massive changes with minimal explanation)
  • The changes were not discussed
  • They did not reflect any consensus
Since then I made some reorganisational changes in line with what TheRingess, a long standing editor of this article, has suggested. The changes that I made were one at a time and all had proper explanations. As I said above, if you would like to discuss these changes, please address them one at a time and don't simply revert the whole lot as BrahmanAdvaita keeps doing. If you would like to add additional material such as tongue pulling, please make a new topic here on the talk page first and seek consensus as this technique is obviously controversial.
Before doing anything – review what I have done and if you have a problem with it – discuss it here first – do not simply revert. Freelion (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you wrothscaptcha for reverting the page. We definitely have consensus. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

When you have not addressed any of the questions above, there is by definition: no consensus. I have merely taken it back to the last version which reflected consensus. Please review the points above and stop this edit war. Freelion (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Have addressed. See above. Your main issue is consensus, correct? Well we have consensus. Atiyogafan (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Where have you addressed the issues that I have specifically listed above? Freelion (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You falsely accused people of vandalism. That was addressed. You say there was no consensus. That was addressed repeatedley.Atiyogafan (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm seeking admin action. Leave everything alone for now. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm in favour for more responsible editors to join in on this discussion. But there is no need to stop talking in the meantime. To recap, I have reverted the article to the state it was in before Atiyogafan made wholesale sweeping changes with minimal edit summaries and no discussion. This is per the standard of Bold Revert Discuss cycle. If you are conscious of following Wikipedia guidelines, we are now in the discussion phase and should be discussing, not reverting. I have invited you Atiyogafan to remake your changes or discuss them one at a time to seek consensus. In the meantime, please review and comment on the present structure of the article because it's looking pretty neat even if I do say so myself. Freelion (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Gatoclass's deletion of all academic material from article[edit]

As an admin, why would Gatoclass delete the only material in the article that comes from actual PhD's in ancient studies? Atiyogafan (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm also baffled on that. Its the only section that references actual hatha yoga texts, and comes from a scholar. Gatoclass obviously holds some kind of New Age interpretation of kundalini divorced from hatha yoga and pranayama. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I didn't know that yoga was fringe. Atiyogafan (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the book in question in front of me, so I have no way of evaluating the text. However, it appears to be an anthology of ancient texts rather than a treatise on the modern practice of yoga.

I have read quite a few books on kundalini and I cannot recall ever coming across the tongue-pulling exercise as a method of kundalini raising. I did once read, long ago, a text which recommended using a razor blade to shave back the part of the tongue that attaches to the lower palate, which supposedly assists one in extending the tongue up the nasal passage, but I've never seen that method corroborated either.

The traditional method of kundalini raising is receiving shaktipat through a Guru. Kundalini raising can also be achieved by chanting, meditation, hatha yoga and other forms of spiritual practice. The problem with the section in question as it currently stands is that it effectively presents "tongue pulling" as a primary means of kundalini raising when AFAIK it is a fringe practice which is virtually unheard of in modern yoga. The various recommended bhandas I have less of a problem with, but again, I think any section on methods of kundalini raising should present mainstream methods followed by less common methods in proportion to their representation in practice. Gatoclass (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: After a google search, I have come across a few sources that mention the tongue pulling exercise, as well as the tendon-shaving method, but I still see no evidence that these methods are in widespread use. Per WP:UNDUE, it is important that minority views are not presented as mainstream. The way the section is currently presented, anyone reading it might conclude that the primary means of kundalini raising is to yank one's tongue back and forth, a conclusion for which there is little if any evidence. Gatoclass (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Its not an anthology of ancient texts. Its a secondary work by an Oxford academic. Shaktipat is not the traditional method of raising kundalini. Moreover, we are merely presenting what the traditional texts say. Please respect the consensus. Atiyogafan (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Shaktipat is not the traditional method of raising kundalini
That is just an assertion. You would need to demonstrate that with reliable sources. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Gatoclass, you are relying on quite incorrect personal knowledge. Since you like Googling, please note there is a whole internet forum where people practice kechari mudra by first snipping the lingual frenum. Its called Advanced Yoga Practices. There are youtube videos on it as well. It is mentioned in the most popular hatha yoga text, Hatha Yoga Pradipika. Yogananda brought American awareness to the method in the 1940's. Tibetan yogis also touch the palate with the tongue in many practices. Yet what does any of this have to do with Wikipedia policies? BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
An internet forum is not a reliable source. Also, the fact that such a forum exists does not prove the practice is mainstream; there are forums in support of practically any fringe belief.
As I do not want to spend too much time on this issue however, I am willing to propose a compromise for the present. I do not have any great objection to mention of kechari mudra or the other bhandas mentioned in the section; I just think the part referring to tongue pulling should go, as it appears to be a far from universally employed (or approved) method of achieving this mudra. And while I still have some misgivings about this information, it might be suitable for inclusion in the kechari mudra article itself provided it is not presented in a WP:UNDUE manner. I am still uncomfortable about the presentation of this section at the top of the article however as it implies these methods are more important than other methods. It would be more appropriate IMO to discuss all the methods in the same section, in proportion to their representation in sources. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not understanding. I have already supported my claims. An Oxford scholar is not a reliable source? You are the one making the fringe claims citing Google.com Atiyogafan (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
How do I know you didn't simply cherry pick the info you liked from that book and ignore that which didn't suit you? How do I know that the scholar himself didn't cherry pick the info he preferred? Just because a statement is reliably sourced doesn't necessarily mean it can't be inaccurate or misleading. Giving undue weight to one particular POV (assuming it is even presented accurately) would obviously be a violation of policy. Gatoclass (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Gatoclass, you don't believe that the actual traditional Indian methods are far more important than modern "New Agish" ones? Moreover the section is titled "Medieval Texts". People are free to skip that, if they are not interested in the traditional approach. Borakai (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, what are the "actual traditional methods"? In my experience, most of the traditional texts emphasize the importance of the Guru. There are also the other methods of kundalini awakening such as chanting, meditation, hatha yoga and service to others. Emphasizing a handful of yoga postures over these broader methods seems to me to be almost by definition a case of WP:UNDUE. Gatoclass (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Again relying on your personal unsubstantiated views? Unless you have some sort of reliable reference, you need to move on. Most of the traditional texts do mention exactly what the section entails. I already mentioned the Bible of hatha yoga, the Hatha Yoga Pradipika. You can't get more mainstream than HYP. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, look, I have the flu at the moment and I'm really not up to a content debate. I will try to return to this debate in a few days when I am feeling better. Apologies for the inconvenience. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It is my experience in reading this thread article and others of similar topic that Gatoglass brings a contentious and ambiguous POV with a very poorly informed underlying bias. Any "admin" who selectively sources google for some things, and then completely ignores PhDs and referenced materials... needs to be doing more yoga rather than spending his time on the computer making thing difficult for other people. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Quite the contrary, you and your numerous sockpuppets have been using Wikipedia as a promotional outlet and nothing else, that has got to stop. —SpacemanSpiff 18:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

POV and other concerns[edit]

(To explain why I added the maintenance tags) The existence of a "kundalini" is a spiritual belief, not fact, and it should be written about as such. Also the lead section is currently an incoherent mess. ("Kundalini literally means coiled. In yoga, a "corporeal energy" - an unconscious, instinctive or libidinal force or Shakti, lies coiled at the base of the spine.") — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this . the style of the article is such that IT EXISTS. It should be changes to mean - It is a belief. Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I have researched Kundalini extensively over the past ten years and I'm looking forward to contributing to this page. I am new to Wikipedia editing so please let me know if I am not following the correct etiquette.
In terms of kundalini being a spiritual belief rather than a fact, many people who have experienced Kundalini understand it as a biological phenomenon rather than a spiritual belief system. Restricting the description of Kundalini to 'a spiritual belief' undermines that position just as much as referring to it as 'a fact' undermines those who don't believe in it. Therefore I think we need to find a middle ground which acknowledges both viewpoints. I will draft up a new section about this when I get time.
I would also like to introduce the concept of Pranotthana, which is currently redirected (incorrectly) to the Wikipedia page for 'Prana'. In the Hindu traditions, Pranotthana is understood as being 'Kundalini lite', i.e. a set of experiences similar to kundalini awakening but without the full intensity or scope. Pep Busby (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey Pep, thanks for your interest. I think what really needs to be done is rewriting the lead, specifically the first sentences, it really makes no sense right now. There should be some way to simply state "Kundalini is ..." and give its actual definition.
Also, no one said it's a "belief system". It's a thing, it's a concept, it's a real word, a symbol -- but most of that concept is comprised of unverifiable beliefs, like it being a part of a "subtle body", of it being a "dormant potential force", of it being "awakened" through meditation, of these symptoms being a good thing rather than a reason to turn to a doctor. Most of what the article writes about are simply beliefs, the rest is symbolic explanation and history. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Jeraphine, your belief that kundalini is not real or not proven is just that – your belief. It is not your position as Wikipedia editor to challenge the existence of kundalini by saying it is unverifiable. Your job is to confirm whether or not the statements made in this article reflect what has been said by reliable sources. If you find that there is any discrepancy, please state it, otherwise the POV template should be removed. Freelion (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, the sentence in the intro makes perfect sense to me. If you can come up with a better suggestion, please offer it instead of adding these tags which discredit the article. Freelion (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
That the Kundalini Syndrom exists, there is no doubt of that; there were enough clinical descriptions in the psychological literature to back up this assertion. I agree with Jeraphine that the interpretation of the "symptoms" in term of coiled snake, subtle energy, Shakti marrying Shiva, etc... is a matter of belief system. The fact is, there is currently no uncontroversible explanation in modern scientific terms of this phenomenon; it certainly should deserve more attention from academic research, but it doesn't. 188.104.213.172 (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
sheesh, this is not "a belief", it is a very specific technical term in the vocabulary of Yoga as it developed in c. the 16th century. You cannot have a technical discussion without assuming the reader is familiar with the topic's basic. This page is supposed to give a technical discussin within the framework of yoga, and not lose itself over musing whether Yoga, and its technical concepts, are "beliefs" or if they "exist".
That said, this article is of course completely broken and would profit from WP:TNT, start over and write it as a technical article you would expect in an encyclopedia, not some online dumping ground of assorted google results. --dab (𒁳) 13:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree that the article is broken at all. Try some TLC instead of TNT. Freelion (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

   Specifically, i am moving Kundalini to Kundalini energy per Primary Dab, even tho i am aware that "Kundalini" means the energy while "Kundalini yoga" is a derivative term. As the guideline makes clear, it is more important in cases like this one for titles to reflect common usage than authoritative usage. In this case, there are far more people aware that "Kundalini" is likely to be used as a term for a type or school of yoga than are aware that that yoga is called "Kundalini" solely bcz it is intended to make use of the energy called "Kundalini".
   I am aware that Kundalini (energy) could arguably be preferred (as avoiding a redundancy like Water (aqueous). Dab-title criteria specify using the parenthetical for a dab'd title only when there is no short way of making the distinction w/o it (it's always a touch jarring, arguably ugly). But if the "Kundalini energy" title is unsatisfactory to people who are able to contribute substance to the aricle (i can't), and i am asked to, i will join any name-change discussion long enuf to say that i, as the proposer of the title, find the guidelines' preference too weak to dictate the title if Kundalini cognoscenti prefer the parenthesized version.

   Without taking back any of the foregoing, i found as i previewed before saving it, that the title i am moving the article to is already a RDR to the article, so the likelihood that reading what i just struck thru would waste colleague's time is much higher than i anticipated. (But the offer still stands.)
--Jerzyt 01:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Jerzy, I really don't understand why you did this. There is no need for disambiguation as there is only one definition of kundalini. The other uses (kundalini yoga and a book about kundalini) are derivative as you said. They could simply be referred to in the 'see also' section. There has been no discussion with other editors about this major change and I believe it has created more confusion than anything else. I ask that you change it back to how it was. Freelion (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
   (The preceding contrib (unlike what follows) is actually what its sig says: a contrib made here by User:Freelion when the timestamp says it was.
--Jerzyt 03:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC))

   Before i put the pink box around it, what is inside the following pink box purported itself to consist of contributions made on this page by me and by User:Freelion, and thus to have been written in that context. In fact they are (at least) approximate contribs by the two of us, but not on this page that is currently named Talk:Kundalini energy. I am not claiming (nor denying) that any intentional falsification is involved, but Freelion presumably gave no thot to the potential for confusion, especially as effected by change of context.
The content of following box is user:Jerzy#Kundalini article copied from my talk page copied from my talk page:

Hi there, please refer to the talk page of the article previously known as kundalini. I have stated that your changes were unnecessary, unhelpful and had no consensus. Out of courtesy I ask that you revert them immediately. Please use the talk page for any further discussion. Freelion (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed no longer Kundalini, which is now a Dab. Talk:Kundalini Rdr's to Talk:Kundalini yoga, so that is probably the talk page in question. Let's see what the scoop is.
--Jerzyt 17:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

--Jerzyt 17:55 &19:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

   I recall disambiguating "Kundalini", presumbly by converting Kundalini to a Dab page, or (more likely, judging by some summaries i see on my contribs, doing that and then turning it into a single-topic page with a HatNote to a new Dab page.) That stretch of contribs also indicates concurrent and presumably relevant discussion at User talk:Morganfitzp#‎Dab editing, which a more skilled WP editor probably would have consulted before issuing what is, however politely couched, an ultimatum. I don't recall its substance, but I would suggest you check whether you've considered whatever they and i discussed at the time.
--Jerzyt 19:43 & 19:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Strikethru is a useful mechanism for signaling the presence of offtopic discussion without making it significantly less accessible.--Jerzyt 03:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jerzy, in response to your action I originally posted the following (repeated from above):
Jerzy, I really don't understand why you did this. There is no need for disambiguation as there is only one definition of kundalini. The other uses (kundalini yoga and a book about kundalini) are derivative as you said. They could simply be referred to in the 'see also' section. There has been no discussion with other editors about this major change and I believe it has created more confusion than anything else. I ask that you change it back to how it was.
Discussion on someone's talk page is not the proper place to have decided on this action - there should have been a discussion on this talk page. Could you explain, with reference to my points above and in plain English why you think the term needs to be disambiguated? Freelion (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC) & Jerzyt 03:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
   No decisions were made on any user talk pages. I don't feel a need to continue User:Jerzy#Kundalini article, but if you want to, i'll explain to you there how you caused all your location problems.
--Jerzyt 03:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
   Well, what you ask is easier than a plain English discussion of how an H-bomb works, and i'll try. You've offered your opinion that "there is only one definition of kundalini". (I assume that in a sense that is true -- much like a Catholic and a Muslim would each say "there is only one definition of God".) But your confidence in that notion is not relevant, bcz that is not the criterion for determining a primary topic.
   If you want plain English, tho, i've been around the block enuf times to justify more than average confidence in my common sense, and i also know (when challenged) that doing a quick experiment is invaluable. As to the first, i've known enuf for decades to realize that only one in ten or a hundred Americans would understand (from a description of it that avoided the word "yoga") that karma yoga is a form of yoga; as to the second, i asked at least 4, probably 5, intelligent people with broad interests "What is kundalini?" One said "it sounds Indian", two said "a form of yoga", and the rest said they had no idea. I think one of those who said "yoga" said something like "Is that the yoga you do in a really hot room?" -- a question i can cope with only to the extent of wondering whether it is they or i who is inclined to confuse bikram yoga with kundalini yoga, and not to the extent of expressing an opinion on it.
   Please do note that it is entirely Dab issues that i am concerned with here: they are
the titles of the articles, and
(implicitly) the need to make a clear reference, in the lead sent, to the given article's title.
For instance, i would assume that a Kundalini (energy) or Kundalini energy article would have a lead beginning something like
Kundalini (sometimes called Kundalini energy to avoid confusion on the part of those who are aware of Kundalini yoga but not of its foundations) is ...
and conversely that the yoga-focused Kundalini or Kundalini yoga article's lead would begin something like
Kundalini yoga (sometimes called simply Kundalini by those unaware that Kundalini is a Sanskrit term for a metaphysical ...) is ....
   The Dab considerations do not preclude, as long as confusion is avoidable, using the more generic term thruout the rest of the article, nor in fact (as above) in the lead sentence once the title has "been paid off". Similarly, links from other articles to either the yoga page or the energy should point to the actual page name, but can be piped so the rendered link is labelled simply "Kundalini", as long as the article or phrase in which it appears will not confuse the reader.
   I respect your obviously much greater knowledge of all the kundalini-related topics, and would be very unlikely to edit these articles in any other regard.
--Jerzyt 03:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
   You expressed urgency on my talk page about reversing the renaming of at least one page. (Which one is not important to this discussion.) Please be clear on one hand that WP:Cut-and-paste moves are a terrible mistake whose correction produces much wasted effort, and that reversing an orthodox but mistaken move is generally impossible without admin status.
   On the other hand, if for some reason there's a clear decision that i've gone wrong, i stand ready to do the task, and having made the move, i should need less study to reverse it.
--Jerzyt 03:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jerzy, your comparison of kundalini with God does not hold water since you will find only one article called 'God' on Wikipedia, despite there being many different descriptions and conflicting beliefs about the subject. Similarly, there is only one topic of 'kundalini' and there should only be one article for it.
The other articles on your disambiguation page are Kundalini yoga and someone's book about their experiences with Kundalini. These can both be referred to in the article in the 'see also' section. The book could perhaps even be used as a reference.
  • Kundalini yoga is a technique devised to awaken the kundalini. It is a separate thing like wood and woodworking. Is there a disambiguation between wood and woodworking? Do people get them easily confused? No, of course not. For your information, kundalini yoga is not ever simply referred to as kundalini and I can't imagine where you got that idea from - maybe from your own research with people who have never heard of the subject?
  • A book about kundalini could perhaps be used as a reliable source for the subject. If you are going to make a disambiguation page for every book on a subject then where will we be? It's just ridiculous.
The urgency in reversion of this change that you have inferred is related to the Bold revert discuss cycle guideline. You've made a change, I would like to revert it so we can discuss it. I'm glad that you have offered your assistance to revert your change and I ask that in the light of the fact that I have legitimate arguments against your change, you revert it immediately so we can go on and discuss your proposal. Freelion (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

I cleaned up the opening sections of both kundalini yoga and kundalini energy (which may of may have gotten yet another name switch by the time you read this) in hopes that having clear delineations of these terms with references to support them will help keep the peace in Kunaliniland. If readers/editors are still confused about the difference between kundalini(energy) and kundalini yoga, I suggest comparing qi to qigong: one talks about energy and the other about a practice of tapping into that energy. Morganfitzp (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Another analogy: electricity and alternating current. Morganfitzp (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for some more examples Morganfitzp, of related articles which do not need a disambiguation page - very similar to the example I made in the above section (of wood and woodworking). Is there any debate now about the lack of need for a disambiguation page for kundalini and kundalini yoga? Does anyone have any objection if Jerzy does not undo it, that I contact an administrator to revert the disambiguation page? Freelion (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
A disambiguation page for kundalini is useful: the word serves as shorthand for several different things. At the yoga studio in my neighborhood, the word "kundalini" simply appears on the schedule and most people have no idea what it means. They might turn to Wikipedia and see an article about a kind of energy that's "purported to be coiled at the base of the spine like a serpent," but what they're really looking for is an article about Kundalini Yoga. Morganfitzp (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
(An aside: This topic has been ironically contentious for something that's supposed to lead to inner harmony and bliss!) Morganfitzp (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Looking over the posts and the articles, it seems to me that there should be one page called Kundalini which includes all aspects within the article. A person doing research will see Kundalini Yoga listed at the top and can then just choose to read about that. There is no need to have many pages. If we did that here, can you imagine if every subject in Wikipedia did that, Wikipedia would become completely unorganized. Better to keep all the information under one page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from Red Rose, but I believe Kundalini Yoga still deserves its own article, just like the other branches of yoga mentioned in the article which seek to awaken the kundalini. Kundalini yoga is almost a brand name associated with a particular yoga school. Other schools referred to in the body of the Kundalini (energy) article include Kriya yoga and Sahaja Yoga which both have their own articles. That's another problem with the disambiguation page - it implies there is only one yoga school for this subject.
Morganfitzp, we can't have the subjects on Wikipedia organised according to the shorthand of a yoga studio in your neighbourhood! :-) Neither should we organise the subjects based on an assumed common misconception of the subject based on our own research. Which other Wikipedia article does that?
As you stated correctly before - kundalini is the energy, kundalini yoga is a practice - like wood and woodworking, qi and qigong. They do not have disambiguation pages. Let's stick to the facts and not organise articles based on any assumed misunderstanding. Freelion (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
One key difference: Just about every English speaker knows what wood is, very few know what kundalini is. That there's so much debate about it on Wikipedia is a testament to that. Morganfitzp (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Morganfitzp, if not many people know about Kundalini then what are we (as Wikipedia editors) in the business of doing - providing people the correct and most useful definition of the term or providing them information based on (and confirming) a misinterpretation that you assume they have already made? Clearly, it would be counter productive to make different rules according to our assumptions about the general knowledge of the subject. Wikipedia works as much as possible to provide correctness, so I think the comparison with wood and woodworking is quite valid. Freelion (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. While consensus is hardly overwhelming, a majority of editors seem to think the unilateral move of this page was hasty, so consider this the R in WP:BRD. No prejudice against a future request against a primary topic for Kundalini. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

– This disambiguation page was created without any discussion or consensus on the talk page. The current discussion on this talk page in the above two sections only began after the disambiguation page was created. According to the Bold revert discuss cycle guideline, the disambiguation page should be undone until consensus can be reached on the talk page. Freelion (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Agree. I agree with reverting the disambiguation page back to Kundalini with all other page titles being addressed in the one article Kundalini. Kundalini being the main subject with Kundalini energy and Kundalini yoga and perhaps even Kundalini syndrome as subtopics. It would be unorganized otherwise. It confused me when I searched for Kundalini and came across the disabiguation page and wondered why it wasn't all on one page. Kundalini is clearly the primary topic with everything else listed under it. Kundalini energy or kundalini yoga or kundalini awakening or kundalini meditation etc... would not exist without Kundalini. It makes complete logical sense that Kundalini is the primary topic. To split this into separate pages doesn't make sense. If the page was extremely long and impossible to read...perhaps then it would be a good idea to split the page apart. I agree revert and have one page called KundaliniRed Rose 13 (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I suspect that the yoga discipline is better known in English than the philosophical premises underpinning the yoga discipline, but I think in this case it's useful to present a searcher with both terms, since it is slightly ambiguous. It does not help that both articles avoid presenting the reader with an immediate link to the other concept. 168.12.16.14 (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as per the above. Morganfitzp (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree. Anyone who knows the subject can tell you that Kundalini is the primary topic. If I could suggest a compromise, rename the disambiguation page to "kundalini (disambiguation)", re-instate "kundalini (energy)" back to "Kundalini" and include a hatnote saying "for other uses see...Kundalini (dismbiguation)". Freelion (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - "Kundalini" and "kundalini energy" mean essentially the same thing. When reference is made to "kundalini" or "the kundalini" it means "kundalini energy", it certainly doesn't mean "kundalini yoga", nobody says "I do kundalini" meaning "I do kundalini yoga". I don't think there can be any doubt that "Kundalini", meaning kundalini energy, is the primary topic from which all the others are derived, and it should clearly be listed as such IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Among yogis, people do say, "I practice Kundalini." Even in books about Kundalini, the energy principle is described, followed by the practice—i.e., kundalini yoga, whether that's "kundalini" (with a lower-case "k") or Kundalini (with a capital "K"). The principle and the practice are esoteric enough in the West (and even in the East) that it's the practice (kundalini yoga) that is more visible, and that's what most people are looking for when they run a search for kundalini. Morganfitzp (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The only way the statement "I practice kundalini" would ever make sense would be in response to the question "What kind of yoga do you practice?" No-one would say "I practice kundalini" when asked, for example, what their hobbies are, because it wouldn't make any sense. "Kundalini" is not a practice, it's an energy. The difference between "kundalini" and "kundalini yoga" is as the difference between "bread" and "breadmaking", kundalini is the bread and therefore the primary topic, kundalini yoga is the breadmaking and belongs on the disambiguation page along with all the other derivatives of the primary topic. Gatoclass (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure. And baking and yoga are two different practices (usually—I know someone who teaches combination yoga/breadmaking workshops) with two different vocabularies, each with its own linguistic ambiguities: The inquiry, "I see that you're dressed in white. What do you do?" could be answered, "I'm a baker," or, "I'm a Kundalini practitioner" without any mention of bread or yoga. The big difference here is that bread and baking are more common than kundalini in our current lexicon. When someone sees the word "kundalini" and asks what it is, more often than not the correct answer for what they're actually asking about is, "It's a style of yoga," even though kundalini is, theoretically, a form of energy. Morganfitzp (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
No, kundalini is not primarily "a style of yoga", kundalini yogas exist to awaken and maintain kundalini energy, that is the reason for their existence, if there was no kundalini energy there would be no kundalini yogas. You cannot understand kundalini yoga without understanding what the kundalini itself is, it ought to be patently obvious in such a circumstance that kundalini yoga is inevitably a secondary topic. Gatoclass (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
That there has been so much debate about this topic (beyond this teensy thread here) only emphasizes the need for Kundalini to be a disambiguation page. Morganfitzp (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The voting is what will determine the outcome.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTAVOTE --dab (𒁳) 19:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • don't care. Guys, it's no big deal, "Kundalini" can be the dab page, or this can be the "primary topic" where "Kundalini" redirects to, then with a {{otheruses}} template here. Both possibilities are arguable, and fine. Please focus on improving actual article content instead, which would be much more sorely needed. --dab (𒁳) 19:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually dab, it is a big deal. The creation of the disambiguation page was done without discussion and it is now obviously being opposed. Therefore, according to Bold revert discuss cycle, it should be reverted and discussed. Administrator rights are necessary to do this. Freelion (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I haven't seen any reliable sources making the mistake of using The word "kundalini" when they mean "kundalini yoga". There is no confusion of these two terms used by reliable sources. I agree with Gatoclass - "kundalini" is the thing and "kundalini yoga" is what you do with the thing. Exactly like "bread" and "bread making" or "wood" and "wood working"; two articles which do not need disambiguation. The only debate and confusion is asserted by Morganfitzp and this seems to be based on his/her original research. Freelion (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The appeal to metaphysical arguments about kundalini is one thing, and the methodology prescribed by WP:Primary topic is another thing, poles apart from it, bcz the project exists for the benefit of ordinary users, not to placate the paradigms of experts in a narrow area.
    --Jerzyt 11:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree. "Kundalini energy" is a new-agism. The topic is kundalini. And kundalini yoga is derivative. It is not the primary topic of kundalini in any way, shape, or form, but rather a practice that is based on kundalini, and it is an abuse of primary topic to suggest it is, since they don't have the same name!. On top of that, kundalini is used throughout both Eastern and Western occultism, and has been since Woodroffe. It is by far the most common usage for the term. Yworo (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment:

   FL believes i am in the wrong for having done the move without consensus, but unless the move-tangled history needs to be checked further, it appears that Mfzp created a Dab Kundalini de novo at 18:04, 7 January 2013, in full compliance with the primary topic guideline which states "If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page", which is also referred to "equal disambiguation" (with the sense of equal being that all the topics are treated equally in being denied the unqualified title, rather than in the sense that each topic is equally significant).
   What i may have negligently described as a "clear methodology" for determining if a primary topic exists is actually more of a consensus process whose details vary according to the "claimants" for the title. I have not inspected the history to determine whether the conversion from equal to having the energy primary (as the supporters of the move seek to re-achieve) was based on a consensus informed by the primary topic guideline's spectrum of two aspects and three supporting tools, but i conjecture that FL overrode Mfzp's default "no primary topic" judgment with much the same cavalier attitude that FL attributes to me, and redress of failure to reach consensus at any point may well be the correct action here.
   IMO there are thus two arguments for a broader discussion:
  1. a judgment by Mfzp was made that no primary topic exists, and we may be awaiting the first consensus that there is one;
  2. a perhaps weaker argument that the lack of current consensus on any primary is functionally equivalent to a consensus that there is indeed no primary topic, and thus basis for equal dabn.
   I am not inclined to try to compile the evidence that Kundalini, the yoga is primary topic, and if such evidence is not presented, i would readily support equal disambiguation.
   Speaking only for myself, i believe the evidence of the three tools can be expected to point to kundalini, the yoga, as the primary topic, but the current lack of consensus is a strong argument for equal disambiguation, whether or not Mfzp's January draft is indeed the first disambiguation that acknowledged the 3- (and by now 4-fold) ambiguity of "Kundalini".
  (Tatva Kundalini leaves me confused whether for him "Kundalini" is his latter name, or whether Tatva is in some sense equivalent to "Tat Tvam Asi" and "Tatva Kundalini" thus something distinct from a name or title of a person.)
--Jerzyt 11:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I am astonished that Jerzy has tried to dismiss the arguments made so far by calling them "metaphysical". If you read them carefully Jerzy, I'm sure you will find they are straight forward and uncomplicated. Please participate in the discussion constructively by addressing the previous arguments by name instead of simply dismissing them with rhetoric.
Jerzy and Morganfitzp may well have followed the rules for creating a disambiguation page, that is not disputed. What is disputed is that the disambiguation page was made unnecessarily and with no prior discussion on this talk page. In light of the objections it is clear that the action needs to be reversed as per the Bold revert discuss cycle guideline. This should be done first, followed by discussion. Jerzy, this is certainly not the first time I've mentioned this to you, and you have ignored it again. Jerzy for an administrator, frankly I'm disappointed and I can't imagine why you have chosen not to follow Wikipedia policy on this.
Even
The following pink box -- added to enclose content signed by Freelion at 13:29, 14 October 2013 -- appears to falsely attribute a statement to me, and i address that problem below as part of a response to that colleague.
--Jerzyt 06:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Jerzy admits that Kundalini should be the primary topic
but still refers to a "lack of consensus". Where is this lack of consensus exactly? Is he referring to Morganfitzp's personal assertions? As stated above, personal assertions are not relevant - they come under the title of "original research". So if we include Jerzy, that makes 4 editors so far who agree that "Kundalini" is the primary topic. This is starting to look like a consensus to me.
To repeat my proposed compromise: rename the disambiguation page to "kundalini (disambiguation)", re-instate "kundalini (energy)" back to "Kundalini" and include a hatnote saying "for other uses see...Kundalini (dismbiguation)". Freelion (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Accusations aside, folks who look up kundalini can (for now) easily access all of the things that kundalini could mean: a book title, an energy, a film composer, a style of yoga, a syndrome—and that's a great thing. Why sweep something under the Wiki-rug just because it's newer, new age-ier, or someone just doesn't particularly like it? The whole kaboodle of kundalini articles has been peppered by editing wars for far too long. Let's keep kundalini dab-style and the wool out of the Wiki-users' eyes. Morganfitzp (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
And for some past discussion on the topic see Talk:Kundalini yoga#Various_Kundalinis. Peace. Morganfitzp (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
   Freelion, it becomes harder and harder to consider you a serious discussant. I think i have clearly and repeatedly stated that i believe Kundalini yoga is the primary topic for the term "Kundalini"; perhaps you have managed to confuse yourself by continuing to say "kundalini" for the energy, as if you are not trying to communicate with anyone who sees it differently from your way, or fail to understand that construction of a wiki encyclopedia has proven the necessity of a great many policies, guidelines, and ways of thot that you are unlikely to have encountered elsewhere.
  1. You say "Jerzy admits that Kundalini should be the primary topic", which cannot be a contribution to the discussion: it is either (A) false or (B) a tautology.
    (A) I believe that Kundalini yoga is, and should be, the primary topic for the term "Kundalini", and therefore that Kundalini energy (which is to say the energy that you like to call "Kundalini" without qualification, and which i assume is likely to be the sole meaning of "Kundalini" in Sanskrit), and if you mean to say that i made some statement indicating i approve or approved having the energy as primary topic for the term "Kundalini", i expect you to point out to me what made you draw that conclusion, so i can annotate it avoid further misapprehension of my statements and position.
    (B) It is a strongly established fact that Wikipedia wants "Kundalini" to be used as the title
    * of the article on whatever topic is determined to the primary topic of the term "Kundalini" (whether that topic is the energy called Kundalini, the yoga called Kundalini, the book called Kundalini ..., or something else), or
    * of (in the event that there is no primary topic) of the disambiguation page for the term "Kundalini".
    and in that no relevant information is conveyed by your statement, and you should endeavor to avoid such confusing or misleading statements in future.
(I shall continue this response, but interrupt it for now, having noted and addressed a more serious problem in this talk section.)
--Jerzyt 06:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I just read the link you, Jerzy, gave for primary topic and after reading it, Kundalini is clearly the primary topic with everything else listed under it. Kundalini energy or kundalini yoga or kundalini awakening or kundalini meditation etc... would not exist without Kundalini. It makes complete logical sense that Kundalini is the primary topic. To split this into separate pages at this point doesn't make sense. If the page was extremely long and impossible to read...perhaps then it would be a good idea to split the page apart. I agree revert and have one page called Kundalini.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to summarise, we have 4 editors agreeing that "Kundalini" is the primary topic, therefore "Kundalini energy" should be reinstated as "Kundalini". The disambiguation page is unnecessary but we can keep it as "kundalini (disambiguation)" with a link from the primary article via a hatnote. There is only one editor disagreeing, that is Morganfitzp who was involved in making the disambiguation page in the first place. As mentioned above, in the event of disagreement, this should be undone as per the Bold revert discuss cycle guideline. Freelion (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
   I have struck that contrib thru, since (see my response above to Freelion's 13:29, 14 October 2013 contrib in this section) the paragraph proceeds, in good faith, on a definitively false belief: my colleague must be "summarizing" in part the earlier contrib, where they stated that i was one of 4 so agreeing, and since i am not, it is unreasonable to credit the statement that there are 4. Doubtless they will welcome this prompt-as-possible flagging of the erroneous argument before misinformation propagates further; perhaps they will want to post below a more soundly based statement.
--Jerzyt 06:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Apologies to Jerzy, I must have got the wrong impression. So to summarise, we have 3 editors agreeing that "Kundalini" is the primary topic. To be clear, those 3 editors disagree with the creation of the disambiguation page. As the disambiguation page was not discussed nor agreed to on this page prior to its creation, in the event that the change is challenged (and it is), the disambiguation page should be undone as per the Bold revert discuss cycle guideline. Freelion (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Um, wait, I !voted in favour of making "Kundalini" (the energy) the primary topic, I see no reason to get rid of the disambiguation page, I just think that it should be moved to "Kundalini (disambiguation)" instead of being at "Kundalini" where the primary topic should be. Gatoclass (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

More reasons[edit]

  • I am going to add three more reasons why I think the page needs to be moved back:
    • Firstly, it's often forgotten that "Kundalini" is not only an energy, but according to Hindu mythology, a Goddess. Naming the "Kundalini" page "Kundalini energy" obscures the alternative meaning of "Goddess" in a way that leaving it at "Kundalini" does not;
    • A google search indicates that the term "kundalini energy" is a relatively rarely employed term, getting only about 242k hits, versus the term "kundalini" alone (minus "kundalini energy" and "kundalini yoga") which gets about 11 million hits. This is because the energy is typically referred to as simply "kundalini" or "the kundalini", another reason why placing the article under the term "kundalini energy" is inappropriate;
    • Dictionary definitions invariably list the primary or only meaning of "kundalini" as the energy. For example:
      • The Oxford dictionary defines "kundalini" as (in yoga) latent female energy believed to lie coiled at the base of the spine.
      • Merriam-Webster: the yogic life force that is held to lie coiled at the base of the spine until it is aroused and sent to the head to trigger enlightenment
      • Free Online Dictionary: Energy that lies dormant at the base of the spine until it is activated, as by the practice of yoga, and channeled upward through the chakras in the process of spiritual perfection.
      • Dictionary.com: the vital force lying dormant within one until activated by the practice of yoga, which leads one toward spiritual power and eventual salvation.
  • It should be abundantly clear from these definitions that the primary meaning of kundalini is the energy, not the yoga - in fact, the yoga doesn't even get a mention in most of the definitions, even as an alternative meaning. Gatoclass (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps Kundalini energy should be renamed Kundalini (energy) and Shakti can be added to the disambiguation page in reference to kundalini being one of her many names. Morganfitzp (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).